A more interesting survey

Yesterday, the Board sent out an invitation to participate in a survey ostensibly to help the Board prepare a new strategy. SPOILER ALERT: the Board is asking whether you want to pay more for a great club or pay less for a bad club. No meaningful choices are given and there is no hint of what exactly the Board plans to do--other than increase assessments and capital contributions. Perhaps they should identify the "top 10%" clubs they view as our role models. It would also be helpful if the Board provided a comparison of key data like assessments, number of members, number of golf rounds played, capital contributions/entry fees, whether people automatically become members when they buy property, whether they have marshals to monitor play, and the like.

I think asking the Owners for input is a great idea. But I hate push polls. And anyone who's been paying attention understands that if there's one thing this Board hates, it's giving Owners a meaningful role in the decision making process. Not to beat a dead horse, but the amenities project is a perfect example. Over a two year period, the Board resolutely refused to give the Owners a project-by-project choice of how they wanted their money spent. Instead, they presented only an "all or nothing" choice. Does anyone seriously think that if the Owners had been presented with a "one project at a time" alternative that the "all or nothing" alternative would have prevailed? If you believe that "do everything at once" would have triumphed, please email me--I have an interest in the Foot Point cart path available for sale!

Here's a poll that many of you will find both fun and informative!

Question 1: The Board informed the Owners in the Spring of 2022 that the community pool would be closed for at least the summer of 2022 to accommodate the construction of the new fitness center. Do you believe that the Board was candid about this issue when the amenities project was presented for a vote? Choose the statement that best represents your view of this issue:

a.    No--the Board knew the pool would be closed but was concerned that it would result in the amenities project being voted down.

b.    No--management failed to inform the Board that extensive renovations of the pool area would require that the pool be closed for at least one season.

c.    Yes--the Board was as surprised as the Owners to learn that the pool would have to be closed in order to demolish both the pool hardscape and support structures by the pool to build the fitness center.

d.    Yes--I had all the information I needed to make an informed decision.

Question 2: The Board recently traded a marsh view lot that may be worth $200,000-300,000 more than the interior lot received by the Club in return. Choose the alternative that best represents your view of this issue:

a.    Great work! I'm personally delighted to contribute $400 to that lucky Owner.

b.    I wish the Board had given him an even better lot--what the heck, it's only a few hundred dollars for each Owner!

c.     Awesome--I'll pay any price to protect the birds! We simply don't have enough birds around here.

d.     Are you serious? The Board really did that?

e.     Isn't a property exchange with an Owner a "related party transaction" that requires disclosure?

Question 3: The Board spends significant Owner funds each year on consultants of one ilk or another--the financial statements don't break out this expense, but it's apt to exceed $100,000 per year ($200+ for each Owner). Choose the alternative that best represents your view:

a.     Only $100,000? The Board needs to up its game and get serious about buying outside expertise.

b.    Excuse me--what exactly do we get from this "investment" that we couldn't get by surveying the Owners?

c.    We should change the governing documents to require the Board to seek Owner approval before spending money on consultants.

Question 4:    The Architectural Review Board and the Board have taken the position that preliminary approval of landscaping plans by the ARB is not binding on the Club. Owners can be required to spend more money on landscaping even if they receive preliminary approval of their plans and install the landscaping per the preliminary plan. Choose the alternative that best represents your view:

a.    Great work ARB! In fact, I think the same rule should apply to house plans, as well. Make the ARB the dominant partner in every construction project. It ain't over until it's over!

b.     Seriously? Once the preliminary plan is approved, the only role of the ARB should be to determine whether the installation complied with the plan.   

Aren't surveys fun?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Seawall Settlement: Promises made--promises kept?

As noted in two recent posts ( here  and  here ), there are a number of issues involved in the seawall settlement known only by the Board and the 12 Owners who have sued the Club. A video exists of Keith Wandell making an unequivocal promise to submit any settlement relating to the seawall to the Owners for a vote. Fortunately, the By-Laws empower the Board President to call a special meeting of the Owners--with or without the concurrence of the Board. Here are some things to ponder: -     No details on the settlement have been made available to the Owners. -     The Owners are already on the hook for the 1/3 of the J-Lot seawall owned by the Club. The settlement will deal with how much of the remaining 2/3 of the costs are paid by the Club. -       There are three types of costs involved: (1) past maintenance and repair costs; (2) the reserve for future maintenance and repair costs that should be established; and (3) future...
Read more

No excuses. A correction and an apology.

When I arrived at the United States Naval Academy on June 30, 1969, I was told that you can make it through life with five "basic responses": (1) yes, sir; (2) no, sir; (3) aye aye, sir; (4) I'll find out, sir; and (5) no excuse, sir. Fifty three years later I need to revert to my basic responses. On Saturday night, I published a post stating that the Board's statement at the annual meeting that the Third Quarter Financial Results had been published was a "lie." In fact, the Third Quarter Financial Results had been published, but were mis-labeled. In any event, an administrative error is not a "lie." I was wrong to refer to the administrative error in posting the Third Quarter Financials as a "lie" and wrong to use a sarcastic post to do so, and I have no excuse for making that post. I unreservedly apologize for the post. It was premature and unfair and I very much regret publishing it. I have deleted the post, but this post will remain o...
Read more

The Board Announces New Assessments

On Monday, November 29, the Colleton River Club Board announced increases in assessments and fees for both the Owners and Invitational Program ("IP") participants. For 2022, the annual assessments will be: Full Members:                  $23,565 Lifestyle Members:          $15,874 IP (Local):                        $18,000                   IP (National):                   $14,625 The assessments for Full and Lifestyle Members do not include the $20,000 assessment approved for the amenities in March 2021. Owners who elected to pay the special assessment under the five-year installment plan will pay an annual assessment of $28,015 (Full) or $20,324 (Lifestyle). Please recall that IP participants do not pay special assessments. Here are some fun facts: Full Dues (2017): ...
Read more